50-Minute Sessions

The following will be offered as 50-minute sessions.

     denotes a 10th Anniversary Presenter or Co-Presenter

     denotes an Invited Presenter or Co-Presenter

Although some may argue that course grades in general are not a good indicator of the level of achievements of program outcomes, there is a compelling argument in favor of a grade-based assessment, as GPA has always been used as the key performance indicator of students' academic performance by both the academia and the employers. An attempt has been made at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals to design a grade-based assessment methodology to test its adoptibility and adequacy. Two semesters' data show that the grade-based assessment technique can be utilized as a viable direct assessment tool, if it is carefully designed and executed well. The proposed method, which has been programmed for its ready-made adoption, requires a simple formatted input from the instructors about the grades and grade distributions used in their testing methods. This paper will present the details of the proposed assessment methodology with illustrations and a comparison with assessment results obtained through rubric-style scoring.

Learning outcomes: 1) An understanding of the basic approach and the methodology. 2) Ability to design and adopt the assessment method. 3) Apply the method to measure the level of achievement of program outcomes.

Return to the complete program details

For several years the chemical engineering department at Mississippi State University (MSU) has been using the results of the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam as one of the many tools to assess the performance of students in meeting the educational objectives as part of the yearly ABET assessment process. In the past part of the yearly process, the faculty at MSU has offered informal review sessions to assist the students in preparing for the exam. This year, the faculty have formalized the FE review course and is offering this course to all graduating chemical engineers for course credit. The students were provided a practice test prior to taking the course and will be tested once again after completing the course. The results of this assessment will be available for inclusion at this presentation. The purpose of this presentation will be to discuss how MSU has used and will be using the FE results as an assessment tool. Previous changes in the undergraduate curricula as a result of this assessment process will be discussed. In addition the evolution and effects of the review process on testing scores and it impact will also be presented.

Learning outcomes: 1) The usefulness of this assessment tool; 2) How to modify the program based on this assessment tool.

Return to the complete program details

A web-based document control system is created to streamline the assessment process defined by industrial and manufacturing systems engineering (IMSE) faculty at Kansas State University. The IMSE ABET direct assessment is achieved through a minimally intrusive strategy in which course components such as homework assignments, tests, participation records, or projects are linked to ABET a-k criteria. Instructors who teach courses containing these components are required to write annual course reports to provide assessment results. The proposed web-based document control system organizes these reports and generates an annual summary reports. The proposed system is also capable of keeping track of progress made according to action plans in a summary report.

Learning outcomes: 1) A minimally intrusive outcome assessment strategy; 2) Proper use of an Internet or intranet to collect direct outcome assessment results; 3) A document control system to organize assessment data, records, and document.

Return to the complete program details

By the year 2014, employment in computer-related industries is expected to grow between 28 and 68 percent, but an alarming decline in the number of incoming freshmen choosing to major in computing science and engineering degree programs bodes ill for American institutions and American industry. The vast disparity between men and women who graduate with computing degrees brings even more cause for concern. The questions of what draws students to CS-related degrees, keeps them there, and improves student learning are being answered through the use of certain technologies and pedagogies in higher education classrooms. Evaluation data from a growing body of research in these innovative curricula show strong potential, but more evidence of success is needed. This report analyzes the results of over 30 research studies that used innovative technologies, such as the Tablet PC, and contexts, such as gaming and robotics, to address these issues, describes the mixed-method evaluation methods used, and makes recommendations for further research.

Learning outcomes: At the end of this session, participants will be able to 1) Describe how the use of certain technologies and pedagogies supports attraction, retention and learning in CS classrooms; 2) Recognize educational practices that show promise in addressing the CS enrollment crisis; 3) Identify focal areas for further research into CS education to help address the enrollment crisis.

Return to the complete program details

Our thirteen engineering programs at CalPoly have used several styles of direct measures. Some of these direct measures yielded results on student performance that surprised faculty. These unexpected results help to engage faculty in the assessment and evaluation process. We have experimented with a variety of web/database tools. Factors influencing the long-term success of these tools will be described. We have also streamlined assessment processes by centralizing certain efforts at the college level, such as alumni and senior surveys. As our measurement, assessment, and improvement processes are maturing, we are considering ways to further develop our infrastructure to increase value for faculty. We are interested in tracking our students longitudinally and including direct and indirect measures, along with transcript-style data. Our aim is to better track the impact of program improvements on student performance.

Learning outcomes: 1) To learn to code creative problem-solving in STEM fields using theoretically defined, multi-dimensional rubrics. 2) To learn to adapt an interview and rubric definition process based on an Integrated Assessment Theory to specific STEM disciplines.

Return to the complete program details

A computer-based system is described that automates the collection, tracking, storage, and reporting of both course objectives and program outcomes using direct performance measurements. The system provides detailed assessment information about individual student performance on both course objectives and program outcomes, as well as data about the performance of a program as a whole. The system is comprised of several components: Excel spreadsheets, used by the instructor, an application that automatically imports spreadsheet data into an SQL server database, and a post-processing application that generates assessment-tracking documents and XML based reports. The system was designed to minimize the time spent by faculty in data management, while providing valuable feedback data for program assessment and evaluation. The application of the system to the mechanical engineering program at Seattle University is also presented. Six years of program assessment data are presented, which demonstrate the robustness, user-friendliness, and usefulness of the system.

Learning outcomes: Attends will learn about a methodology for tracking student and program performance with respect to ABET’s required program objectives, using direct measurements, and see how it is readily applied to an example engineering program.

Return to the complete program details

At York College every engineering student must complete three cooperative work assignments. These experiential learning experiences provide an invaluable mechanism for collecting assessment data. Data can be collected from both the students and their employers. Through the use of proper metrics, the student's level of preparation going into the experiential learning assignment can be evaluated as well as the extent to which the abilities are developed/improved during the assignment. These assessments are not limited to structured co-op programs, but can be made of any experiential activities, including summer and part-time assignments. The session will focus on the collection and use of assessment data from experiential learning opportunities.

Learning outcomes: 1) Recognize the importance of experiential learning for outcomes assessment; 2) How to formulate assessment metrics for experiential learning. 3) The types of assessments that can be made from experiential learning.

Return to the complete program details

This session focuses on the process of establishing and maintaining a successful industrial advisory board at a small school in a small metropolitan area. From creating the advisory board, to faculty involvement, to maximizing the use of the advisory board, to methods for measuring program educational objectives through the advisory board, to keeping the advisory board fresh, many challenges that a small school faces with its advisory board are discussed. Thoughts on how to select advisory board members and maintain a critical mass at meetings are discussed. Experiences from the development of a successful advisory board are discussed, as are typical pitfalls that some programs fall into. The session will be interactive with audience members sharing their successes and failures with advisory boards.

Learning outcomes: 1) The function of an advisory board at a small school. 2) How to form and maintain an advisory board. 3) How to utilize an advisory board for measuring Program Educational Objectives. 4) Typical pitfalls and challenges associated with advisory boards. 5) Perspectives of faculty, department heads, and deans of advisory boards.

Return to the complete program details

All evaluation is inherently political: Some have more power in the process than others. Centralizing information on student learning contrasts sharply to having such information available at the course-level only and subject to complete faculty control. Transparent assessment information systems can serve to shift the balance of power and resources in an institution, yet the volume of assessment data generated frequently makes IT solutions a practical necessity. Given these realities, creating and sustaining an online assessment information system is a complex endeavor. This session details both pitfalls and solutions.

Learning outcomes: 1) Session attendees will be aware of appropriate questions to ask when designing an online assessment management system, from the strategic level to the operational level. 2) Session attendees will be able to articulate cultural constructs that must be considered when designing an online assessment system to ensure institutional acceptance and usage of the system.

Return to the complete program details

At East Carolina University, a new Engineering program began in 2004. Faculty recruited for the new program varied in their previous involvement in assessment and accreditation activities. To engage all faculty members in assessment and evaluation processes, an Assessment Workshop was conducted at the beginning of fall 2007 where faculty members were asked to review assessment data collected during the prior year. For many, this was the first opportunity to examine data in the form that a program evaluator will see. Each faculty member reviewed all data before the workshop, and led discussion on a single program outcome. As a result of this first workshop, faculty members recognized the need for more consistency in collecting, evaluating, and reporting assessment data. A second Assessment Workshop was held at the end of the semester. All participants agreed that dramatic improvements were made in both the quality and quantity of the assessment data.

Learning outcomes: Attendees will learn how to plan and conduct an effective Assessment Workshop.

Return to the complete program details

Educational program assessment is a multi-faceted process that addresses everything from program objectives to performance indicators. There are numerous tasks that interact across different levels in the assessment process. Often faculty members blindly accomplish their assigned assessment tasks without fully understanding the overall process. While each separate task is not hard to understand, grasping the big picture and how these tasks are interrelated can be elusive. We have developed the Tri-Level model that simplifies the learning curve. In particular, it captures the various assessment dimensions and enables faculty members to quickly see how their individual efforts contribute to the overall process. Each level of the model is a cycle that defines, assesses and evaluates the goals at that level. The model also captures the interactions between levels. In addition to explaining the Tri-Level model, we will discuss how using this model can make your assessment process more efficient, simplify documentation and motivate faculty. We will then lead a hands-on activity where participants can use the model to describe or define their assessment process.

Learning outcomes: 1) Gain a clear understanding of how the various assessment pieces work together in a single process. 2) Be able to succinctly define and describe an assessment process. 3) Be able to apply an assessment model to enhance faculty involvement.

Return to the complete program details

The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Engineering had their EAC/ABET accreditation evaluation fall of 2006 to consider reaccreditation of the civil, electrical, material, and mechanical engineering programs and accreditation for the biomedical engineering program. This session will focus on several activities leading up to the visit. 1) How did our assessment processes change from the previous general review, which was also under EC2000? Assessing Objectives (both large and small loops) and direct assessment of Outcomes will be discussed. 2) How did we prepare for the visit? Additional faculty involvement and coordinated efforts among the programs will be covered. 3) How will assessment practices evolve at UAB? The use of IDEA for surveys and other changes will be discussed.

Learning outcomes: 1) How have the expectations for assessment evolved from the early visits under EC2000? 2) How can direct direct assessment be used to increase faculty involvement in the assessment process?

Return to the complete program details

Understanding your population and the areas to focus attention to improve engineering programs is crucial to improving learning outcomes for engineering students. One school, Auburn University, has effectively used assessment data collected from the EBI Engineering Exit Assessment to measure program outcomes, better understand their student population, build collaborative relationships with other departments, raise student and faculty expectations, and focus attention on areas of improvement. Educational Benchmarking (EBI) performs annual national benchmarking studies in undergraduate engineering education using a suite of assessment tools developed by EBI to support higher education assessment needs. Descriptive reporting, prescriptive reporting, benchmarking against other schools, inter-departmental comparisons, and longitudinal trends are provided to aid institutions in their analysis and action planning. Come to this session to understand how Auburn University uses their assessment data to have a positive impact on their engineering students and how your program can use similar techniques.

Learning outcomes: Assessment of undergraduate engineering students; using assessment data to create improvements in programs; using descriptive and prescriptive analysis techniques to analyze data.

*ABET does not endorse any commercial assessment products nor has any relationship with EBI, business or otherwise.

Return to the complete program details

The “course coordinator” system is an assessment tool for individual courses. This assessment practice recognizes that faculty are experts in their respective fields; therefore, they are the most qualified peers to review if a course is taught with the rigor of the established topics and contents, consistent with the ABET requirements. The mechanism of implementation includes the following: (i) courses are categorized into groups based on the topics (e.g., design and manufacturing, solid mechanics, … etc); (ii) each group of courses are assigned a “faculty subcommittee” of with a subcommittee leader; (iii) a schedule of assessment is established such that each course is reviewed with written report once every two to three years.

Learning outcomes: The participants will learn an assessment tool for courses taught in the program and systematic guidelines of the implementation of this assessment tool.

Return to the complete program details

Georgia Gwinnett College, a new four-year college in the University System of Georgia, has taken the opportunity develop an innovative, integrated, multi-level framework for assessment and institutional effectiveness. As a 21st century institution, we have incorporated technology solutions as a portion of this innovative approach (consistent with the frameworks of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development) to support the sustainability of our college. We present and discuss a simulation-based technology used to analyze the relationships between the student learning outcomes in the Information Technology major, general education, and the integrated educational experience. We also present and discuss our structure of interdisciplinary working teams that build faculty commitment to and participation in an outcomes-driven program of institutional effectiveness. We discuss the advantages of our innovative approach, its importance for the college accreditation process, and for establishing a college-wide culture of sustainable development and continuous improvement.

Learning outcomes: During this presentation, participants will learn: 1) The main ideas of sustainable development for an innovative institution of higher education; 2) the main goals of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014); 3) the role of simulation-based technology to support sustainability at an innovative college; 4) the relationship between an outcomes-driven program of institutional effectiveness and sustainability; 5) how interdisciplinary teams build commitment to and participation in an outcomes-driven program of institutional effectiveness.

Return to the complete program details

This presentation describes effective outcomes assessment and evaluation processes that are based on examining a portion of program outcomes each academic year. The faculty is engaged in assessment planning and evaluation of assessment findings for each outcome under examination. At the beginning of the academic year, a faculty retreat is used for selection of performance criteria, assessment methods, and achievement thresholds. The retreat is also used for review and evaluation of the previous academic year’s assessment findings, and for making evaluation deliberations. Then, throughout the academic year, a faculty assessment committee monitors the program’s assessment/evaluation efforts. Documentation of assessment planning and evaluation findings are recorded in an electronic database set up to confirm both regional and ABET accreditation requirements. The presentation includes illustrations of the application of these assessment and evaluation processes and examples of the use of these processes for program improvement.

Learning outcomes: Participants will learn a method for involving engineering faculty in developing assessment plans and evaluating assessment findings. Participants will learn a process for compact display of assessment plans, findings from assessment activity, and follow up actions taken in response to evaluation of assessment findings. Participants will learn how to use a database record to provide evidence of outcome assessment and evaluation activities for regional and ABET accreditation review.

Return to the complete program details

This session will review a process developed to involve Professional Engineers (PEs) in the direct evaluation of the fulfillment of the ABET outcomes by the Department of Industrial Engineering at The University of Miami. 1) The PEs evaluate the ABET outcomes through the use of "objective folders" created with material taken directly from the class folders and provided by the faculty. 2) The PEs rate the level of completion of the ABET outcome based on the overall ABET objective description (a through k) and the additional metrics used for each of them. 3) The PEs write a letter defining the level of compliance with the ABET outcome, including improvement suggestions.

Learning outcomes: Provide the attendees with a new and innovative method to get Professional Engineers (PEs) involved in the evaluation and fulfillment of the ABET outcomes and afford them an opportunity to provide possible enhancements.

Return to the complete program details

Penn State's Rubric cubed is a web-enabled: 1) rubric creator, 2) streamlined grading tool that 3) generates item-specific feedback in text or in a rich media format to transform evaluation into evaluation with assessment. In this lecture and demonstration, the creation and utilization will be featured along with examples of media-rich feedback. This freely available web-based technology is expected to be useful in peer-review, assessment, and evaluation in large classes, and in providing additional quality, targeted feedback to students. If you use rubrics, you will be interested in Penn State's Rubric cubed.

Learning outcomes: Use of technology in automating meaningful feedback; ability to use an easy rubric creation tool; ability to generate feedback in text, audio, animated text, and movie formats; ability to easily include assessment in evaluation of large classes.

Return to the complete program details

An efficient process for improvement of engineering programs is presented that integrates the implementation of ABET criteria 2, 3, and 4. It focuses on collecting information that can guide decisions on program improvements. Program improvements are based on the needs and requirements of the program’s various constituencies and the evaluation of the program outputs. Streamlining the assessment and evaluation process, representative sampling of the program outputs, distribution of responsibilities, and desktop-information-sharing used improve efficiency, enhance effectiveness, and assures that the process is not burdensome. The clarity of the process and the intuitiveness of the information-sharing organization used have resulted in a semi-autonomous system.

Learning outcomes: 1) To integrate implementation of ABET Criteria 2, 3, and 4. 2) To streamline the continuous improvement process. 3) To design intuitive desktop-information-sharing architectures suitable for their programs.

Return to the complete program details

Typical assessment plans are organized in an outcome-centered manner. This may make it difficult to draw connections among diverse measurements, student outcomes, and graduate objectives. The engineering program at Hope College has implemented an assessment plan that is student-centered. As additional data are gathered over time, this plan is expected to minimize or eliminate some aspects of student outcome measurements that result in loss of validity when drawing inferences about graduates. At the same time, it will continue to provide feedback for program and course improvement without lengthy time lags. Feedback from some interesting preliminary results has allowed the program to better advise students in course selection and has improved strategies for student retention.

Learning outcomes: 1) Understand the distinction between outcome-centered and student-centered assessment plans. 2) Learn how to modify an outcome-centered plan to become student-centered. 3) Learn how to use diverse measurements from such a plan to create feedback for program improvements in advising and retention of students.

Return to the complete program details

A small department, housing two EAC programs, enjoys high participation and high-quality data production in outcomes assessment. The faculty are all assessing outcomes in multiple classes each year. Assignment of outcomes, methods, and standards were all voluntary, but subject to review. The faculty find their assessment manageable and relevant. The session will address the organizational model used to encourage and enable the faculty, as well as the role of the ABET champion. The session will also share examples of faculty training, inclusion of new faculty, course rubrics, and the quality of data.

Learning outcomes: 1) Tailoring assessment to their program's organizational structure; 2) Enabling faculty willingness to participate in assessment.

Return to the complete program details

This session surveys various small sample inference techniques and suggests how some might be used in assessment. The assessment process often results in very small data sets (often n < 50). It is difficult to extract reliable information from such small data sets based on ordinary statistical analysis techniques. The community that is intimately involved in assessing engineering educational endeavors will benefit greatly from increased familiarization with small data set inference techniques.

Learning outcomes: Attendees with become familiar with existing small sample size inference techniques, their limitations and benefits, and where to find more information.

Return to the complete program details

Both ABET and regional accreditation agencies provide a set of comprehensive guidelines for student learning assessment, and the standards of each organization must be met to receive re-accreditation. For this session, we will use the SACS guidelines for reference comparison. Differences exist between ABET and SACS accreditation criterion, including both requirements and methods. These differences invariably result in faculty confusion and inefficient expenses of valuable resources. This presentation will focus on the similarities and differences between ABET and SACS--particularly where the criteria used by ABET departs from the SACS emphases. We will use a set of eight charts, one for each of the primary eight criteria of ABET, to illustrate whether and how the components of each criterion differs from those of SACS and how to become more efficient on campus when dealing with both types of accreditation.

Learning outcomes: 1) Participants will learn how SPSU coordinates ABET and SACS assessment processes. 2) Participants will learn the points where the differences between ABET and SACS can create difficulty if not thoroughly understood. 3) Participants will learn how to take advantage of similarities to reduce both confusion and time.

Return to the complete program details

This hand-on workshop will cover the basic aspects of the outcome assessment. The emphasis will be made on the organization and documentation of the assessment process. Organization in the assessment practices is needed to keep the process manageable. Documentation can be required by the ABET evaluator team at the time of the campus visit. A brief introduction to the direct and indirect assessment tools (with more emphasis on the direct assessment tools) will open the discussion for each of the forms. The development of detailed forms will help in the organization and documentation of the assessment process. Each form will focus in different aspects, such as faculty involvement, measuring program outcomes, reporting results, and results for improvement. Every form that will be presented has a specific purpose, but is flexible enough for you to adapt to your own campus requirements. Forms can be developed in either Microsoft Excel or Access.

Learning outcomes: 1) Develops fundamental maps as a strategy to keep the outcome assessment process organized and well-documented. 2) Constructs specific maps to cover different important aspects, such as faculty involvement, measuring program outcomes, reporting results, and results for improvement. 3) Distinguishes performance criteria from each outcome. 4) Locates a rubric to some of the outcomes. 5) Mentions some of the most frequently used assessment tools. 6) Points out some of the actions that can be taken in order to improve the results for the next assessment cycle. 7) Discusses how mapping can be implemented to its own campus requirements.

Return to the complete program details

This session will offer attendees the opportunity to learn more about using technology to support a traditional assessment tool. While there are some concerns with online surveys, this tool can offer many benefits by providing quick feedback to faculty to allow continuous improvement in the program. The advantages and disadvantages of online surveys will be discussed, followed by an example of how the results can be reported and used in an assessment plan.

Learning outcomes: Attendees should be able to 1) understand the advantages and disadvantages of using online surveys; 2) analyze and report online surveys to quickly close the loop and make continuous program improvements; 3) use the results from online surveys effectively in an assessment program.

Return to the complete program details

In the fall of 2006 the presenter’s department underwent one of the pilot visits of the new CAC criteria for CS and IT programs. The results were a renewal of CS accreditation and the accreditation of the IT program; with both programs set for next general review in 2012. In preparation for the visit major changes had to be made to the assessment program, a transition program created, and methods found to present this information to the team. The Team Visit ended with some concerns on assessment which we worked through by the time of the Due Process Response. This talk will focus on the lessons learned in: 1. Understanding the assessment requirements of the new CAC criteria 2. Modifying an assessment program to align with the new criteria 3. Relating the new requirements to your faculty 4. Documenting the assessment program for the Self Study 5. Documenting the assessment program for the Due Process Response

Learning outcomes: Understand the impact of the new CAC criteria on assessment on a Computing Department.

Return to the complete program details

A web-based tool was developed to serve as the archiving and communications platform for the department’s assessment and feedback process. The assessment site contains a searchable database for archiving syllabi, charters, instructor and discipline group course assessments, student evaluation comments, and grade summaries. In addition, meeting minutes, at which these assessment documents were used to make changes to courses, discipline course sequences, and overall curriculum, are archived. Group e-mails (with individualized weblinks) can be sent to that semester’s instructors to request pre-semester syllabus-charter review and end-of-semester assessment. While the tool satisfied the need to manage the assessment administrative process, it had the larger effect of structuring and helping to promote a culture of assessing and improving the program at three levels of assessment and feedback. This presentation will present an overview of the tool and how it formed the basis for the evolution of an assessment-feedback culture in the department.

Learning outcomes: Attendees will be able to 1) list the components of the website and describe its functional structure; 2) identify the ways in which a faculty member interacts and uses the website during a typical semester; 3)identify the ways in which a discipline group and department as a whole use the site for assessment and feedback; 4) explain how a culture of assessment-feedback evolved using the technical archiving and communication tool as the functional basis.

Return to the complete program details

Developing and reviewing Educational Objectives with input from faculty, students, alumni and employers can be accomplished efficiently (and relatively painlessly) using brainstorming and small group work sessions. A detailed plan will be presented which includes how to select participants, tips on choosing a location, how to divide the tasks, the final process of refining the statements, and establishing a plan for assessment of objectives and a schedule for periodic review to ensure that objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.

Learning outcomes: At the end of the session, attendees should be able to 1) choose representative constituents for input into Educational Objectives; 2) select an appropriate location to hold session; 3) conduct a brainstorming session; 4) put ideas on paper (write the objectives); 5) refine the Educational Objectives.

Return to the complete program details

This paper discusses a newly implemented capstone course in our associate degree program for Electrical Engineering Technology students. The methodology employed to assess the learning outcomes for the course, as well as for the program, is to make use of an embedded project-based assessment approach. Such an approach is based on a methodology that goes by the acronym of POGIL, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. That is a process whereby the students work from  a starting point to an all encompassing objective. This session describes the capstone course and its learning objectives and how the achievement of those objectives are assessed.

Learning outcomes: Attendees will gain an understanding of the POGIL methodology and how it may be employed in a capstone course.

Return to the complete program details